DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

PPC are going to look into the liar Andrew Lewis and come up with what exactly? Are they going to find differently to the COI? This is going to be some review. I can't wait. It would be pure Jersey Way if they come up with a different conclusion to the care enquiry.

It really is something when you have to rely on Philip Bailhache to come riding to your aide. This Report has shown the pair of them up for what they really are. You can see how Philip Bailhache was the main instigator in 2008 for trying to shut everything down. The man just can't hide his disdain for this exposing of decades long Child Abuse. The States are well rid of the pair of them.

Why has nobody highlighted Bailhache lying to the States in his apology statement? So he has always fought for children has he? How come that former Head of ESC told of AG Bailhache telling him he would not prosecute an abuser but just wanted him got rid of? Bailhache is full of s**t. But the old fogies will still vote him coz he was the Bailiff. Government you deserve.

Sir PB came out very badly from the COI , his testimony showed a man who was not used to being challenged and questioned ,his disdain for the Q.C.was palpable, he prevaricated, obfuscated and in general gave a good example of a corkscrew. He has a really bad memory ,and said he was unaware of certain things until shown evidence that yes he had in fact seen that document. This man's arrogance and pride have taken a beating ,he is not going to go down without getting his own back.

For example, apart from the liberation day speech for which he got roasted, the COI did not accept the Bailhache explanation of the delay in bringing in the corroboration law ... PB denied that it was due to a lack of political will but instead he said that it was due to incompetence ... the COI found otherwise.

Readers will probably remember the incident...... but probably not remember the runner up in the poetry competition LOL :

ODE TO JERSEY ROYALTY:

It's fictitious, It's maliciousI don't read such stuff on planes

Is it fictitious? ....... Is it malicious? ......I can't remember ..... What's my name ?

I remember contrived 'cant' so admit it I shan'tIt don't even make sense so I'll end this rant

..... And I won't be drawn any further on this matter.

The above ["Ode to a liar" translated from Vogon] was inspired by Sir Philip's data breech, denial and attack on the witness, and eventual apology by way of a limp "personal statement" made in the house where he effectively played the "oh that plane" dementia card!

All as a result of lying about what he read on public view on a plane while traveling to London to further abuse a victim of Jersey abuse and constructive deportation.

For anyone who has any doubt about Andrew Lewis lying I suggest they read the Christopher Harris testimony ... Day 137 afternoon session (4.50pm) If Lewis is to be believed then Mr Harris had fabricated his evidence and was himself lying to the COI along with Wendy Kinnard, his wifePhilIt seems that Lewis is without any conscience, prepared to trash other people's reputations whilst defending his own devious behaviour ... is it any wonder that so many people hold the states of jersey in such low regard ... especially when senior members like Philip Bailhache then come to Lewis's defence ... I just don't get it. The COI have found that Lewis lied on several occasions. The evidence for this is rock solid and there for all to see. Why would Bailhache try and question this ... it doesn't stack up unless he hasn't seen the Harris testimony in which case he should not have got up to speak. I wonder what Mr Harris thinks of Mr Bailhache now!

Interestingly Harris had supplied the COI with his original notes of the meeting with Lewis ... I'd love to know when this was done ... I suspect that it had been done within the last 24 hrs because the day before Lewis had said, as he does, mouth before brain, that he would like to have them 'carbon tested' because they must have been written much later than the date the meeting took place!!!!Interestingly the COI made a point of thanking Mr Harris for supplying them with the original copy ... and there has to be a reason why they chose to do so? And why was the Harris appearance before the COI moved forward? And why was the Lewis appearance cut short to be continued after Harris had given his evidence? I really would love to know the answers to these questions.P

IF, and it is a big if (in the absence of the COI being firm and decisive and open about whether they will keep all their working documents, as they certainly should, Notes and Minutes of Meetings with Counsel, for example,) If as I say, the COI archive this information, then we will soon know the truth of this sequence of events.

Senator Ozouf was quoted in the jep with the 10 words that would best describe the negative daspects of ' the jersey way' .... well I can better that ... I can do it in six and here they are .... 'Lewis lying and Bailhache defending him'

Senator Bailhache was right insofar as the Inquiry does not have any formal burden of proof and its factual findings are not to the "court standard". Surely it is transparently the case that not all the blame for the Graham Power fiasco rests with Andrew Lewis. Why is the role of Ian Le Marquand not questioned? He seems to me to have strung the whole thing out until GP's retirement date to deny him a fair hearing. Lewis is just a distraction from "lock 'em up Le Marquand".

Le Marquand is equally to blame in denying Power a fair hearing and scotching Power's attempt to have his suspension judicially reviewed.

In the fallout from the Inquiry's report attention inevitably focused on the actual suspension in the first place and when the Inquiry decided that the suspension was not related to an attempted child abuse cover-up they never got as far as Le Marquand who has thereby slipped out of view (for the moment). His day too will come.

@ Polo, will the day ever come though given that the Inquiry has now reported, put all the blame on Lewis but left out a consideration of ILM and others concerned. ILM is of course is a fellow barrister and former member of the judiciary. I for one and deeply uncomfortable with it and it is wrong if as Lewis says his family have been subjected to intimidation. What kind of message does this send to prospective candidates as states members? I personally have considered entering politics in the past but this witch hunt solidifies my decision not to. I'm afraid the Inquiry doesn't seem to have properly got to the bottom of things in respect of the GP suspension and that is obvious to any right minded citizen of the Island. It is possible that even if Lewis was well aware of pressure from the chief Minister and others (which Senator Routier seconded on Friday afternoon) to be rid of Power he did not act until the final straw of the Warcup letter. Any court of tribunal can get things wrong - that is why the death penalty is such a bad idea. The Island really needs to move on from this negative aspect of its recent history.

I can't believe that no one has mentioned the elephant in the room yet

I don't believe that is an accident that VFC has so closely linked Andrew Lewis' lies to Team Bailhache's "honesty is paramount" guff

The devil is in the detail.If we look at the transcript of the debate which was never supposed to see the light of day:

http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-transcript-of-in-camera-debate.html(now after half a decade also published on the CoI website)

"The Deputy of St John [Andrew Liar]:

The Senator's conspiracy theories continue to astound me. I was not part of the Council of Ministers until but a few weeks ago. I am not conspiring in any way at all. The Senator consistently conspires in his own mind to work out conspiracies. This is nothing about that. This is a matter of great interest to me as the Minister for Home Affairs, as a resident of Jersey, as a custodian of the public purse. I am bringing a Chief Officer to account. I am giving him every opportunity to defend himself. As far as the accusation you raise about the Metropolitan Police, when I saw the preliminary report I was astounded. So much so that my actions, I believe, are fully justified. If the preliminary report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no doubt at all.

The Bailiff [Mr Bellyache]:Minister, do not go down this road please."

So the actual Bailiff intervenes to shut the Andrew Lewis as Lewis over eggs the pudding in his desperation to please. So unsurprisingly the conspiracy (denied by the half baked CoI !!) goes right to the top. The Bailiff's intervention to shut up a (supposed) Government Minister is difficult to explain outside of the fact that the Bailiff knew it was a set up and that "the main report" will reveal nothing to justify the hostile takeover of the policing function during the investigation of child abuse by the state.

Now Mr "honesty is paramount" leaps to Andrew Lewis' defence

It is such fun watching the wheels come off this. Andrew Lewis has already changed his story to "I came under massive pressure"

Saying that “you get the government you deserve” – in a Jersey context – is patronising, insulting and fundamentally unfair. In the absence of political parties with binding manifesto commitments; with gerrymandered constituencies; with totally opaque constitutional arrangements and the hidden hand of UK ministerial interference; and – perhaps especially – with a weaponised mainstream media, no voter in Jersey has any control over the government they get.

In most nation states, people know who they are voting in as their political leader, their head of government. It is either by direct election as in the USA or France, or indirectly through voting for a specific party candidate in a general election, as in the UK.

Not so in Jersey. Ian Gorst has never had a single popular vote electing him as chief minister. I cannot recall any candidates publishing manifestos stating for whom they intend to vote as chief minister, if elected. I can, on the other hand, recall numerous instances of members going back on manifesto pledges and voting the opposite way from how they promised, without being held to account in any way, or – more seriously perhaps – major policy initiatives affecting all of us without any indication in any manifesto that this was on the cards.

We have a notionally elected chamber (I say notionally as so many are now returned unopposed) where all members are equal, so a constable or deputy from a smaller parish – e.g. St Mary or St Ouen - who never garnished a single vote - can be appointed as minister with a major portfolio. Does anybody truly deserve Anne Pryke?

That is before even mentioning the size of the “government” in relation to the back benches. Collectively, ministers and assistant ministers make up almost half the chamber. Factor in the fragmented nature of opposition politics in Jersey (largely a motley collection of fools and shysters), and the system of patronage in ministerial appointment, and you have not just one-party politics, but virtually one-person politics.

In fairness to VFC"The Government You Deserve?" is clearly a question.

You @10:25 have produced an excellent answer with a pretty comprehensive explanation.

But it is worse than that. It is clear that not only can Jersey politicians renege on manifesto commitments (do the absolute opposite in fact) but they can LIE and even LIE UNDER OATH and still get the support of the ruling party (...or was it ruling man?)

We are all being but-fcuked by these people. Metaphorically in our case but literally for some of those in care or custody

Party politics may be a longer term answer to some of Jersey's political problems, but as an interim measure at least, I think we should revert to the committee system. At least committees give a degree of "proportional representation", and allow members with different political views to reach negotiated compromise positions to bring to the house. The system also allows all or nearly all members of the house to participate in government.

Just think how much more difficult it would have been to unlawfully suspend Graham Power had there been a Home Affairs committee rather than a minister.

A directly elected Chief Minister - sounds attractive, but there are 3 (at least) drawbacks:

1 too much power is implied by this mechanism. And elections in Jersey are too easily skewed by money and by the media, to give so much power to one person in this way.

2 this does not solve the problem of Deputy Bloggs from St. Mary becoming a Minister with 230 votes, which is plainly not right.

3 And a new way of electing the CM does not solve the many problems with the electoral system in Jersey, that it is wildly un-proportional, that so many get in unopposed, and that we, the public, have no say in who gets to be the Ministers.

We should start again with a New Electoral Commission, (to match the New Jersey Way), only this time it would be truly independent and have a genuine desire to serve the people and arrive at a good voting system, instead of a desire to keep the present one-party system going.

The first thing a commission would do is to establish the BASIC PRINCIPLES of a fair and effective voting system, and get general agreement across the population on those key principles.

Only then should it go near how to achieve those principles in practice.

To do anything else is to get bogged down in the detail before the principles are agreed and to end up with a mess, which commands no deep and principled support, and which ends up getting voted out.

Please don't go away Graham - you have everything to fight for now (as you did before)but now confirmed by a QC and a respected panel. I remember talking to your wife in the Royal Square after one of the numerous battles you were having then. She was so worn down and weary by all this, but most of all could not wait to leave Jersey. Lewis says his life has been made difficult, but he only has himself to blame - yours was made impossible not to mention the (untrue) slurs on your reputation and character, all because of the very same Mr Lewis.

Yes indeed he was. So we need to hold Lewis to account and then take a long hard look at the piece of shite that is Frank Walker. Does anybody know whether it is required for a politician to declare being a mason? If not why not? Could someone bring a proposition to try and enforce this? Those voting against would give the game away.

PPC meeting is tomorrow afternoon (in private), so let us hope we know the outcome sooner rather than later.

Ref. the Freemason comment I have long and often said that politicians should be asked to declare whether or not they are 'on the square'. Otherwise it means a trawl through the Freemasons year books in the Library, and even they are not often up to date.

I still maintain that Masonry has a lot to do with some 'scratch each others backs' dodgy goings on in the States.

Graham Power deserves an apology, I was there at the inquiry and for me there was no doubt that he lied, he was well and truly exposed by Ms Magahey. The report leaves us hanging in the air as to why he was suspended, could it be for other reasons than Operation Rectangle ? Was there anything significant regarding the timing, there seemed to be undue haste. There are others who need to be called to account Walker, Ogley, Critch and Le Marquand.also other foot stamping lackeys that let it happen. Remember liars need a good memory.

Is it possible that Lewis did not realise he was being played as a lackey? He's well and truly been shafted by the Inquiry, but is he a comparatively easy kick compared to others involved like Ogley, Crich, Tim Le Cocq etc.?

OK we get it Lewis lied, but please be careful not to focus all your energy on him. There were and are a lot of players who hope to stay hidden but should be in the spotlight today. How about Ian Le Marquand and the millions he spent on reports and the rubbish he spouted to keep Graham Power suspended. Lewis finally admits he was under pressure.

What pressure certainly not from Graham Power the Victim. On record Frank Walker and Bill Ogley ( who took his own minutes ) were involved. Did the orders come down from even higher ?

Graham Power was called into the AG's office, who had a copy of a private email on his desk regarding a police investigation into alleged land corruption in Grouville. It was being researched by Deputy Carolyn Labey who was responding to parishioners' concerns.

She was Stuart Syvret's partner at the time. She should be questioned further today ?

The excellent police chief was suspended three days after the AG meeting. We are now told that the judiciary advised Lewis not to do anything until after the Met report was completed. The Bailiff cut in on him in the States Assembly telling him not to go there ( when Lewis said he had seen the Met. Report ) but it was to late.

Remember also the removal ( from the suspended police chiefs office safe ) his work contract that in the event of any legal problems would enable him to employ lawyers to fight his case, paid for by the states.

The copy at the states human resource department also went missing. VFC and Rico i.e. team voice are forensic specialists in this case and its crooked goings on. This is from my memory, they no doubt will correct me of I am wrong.

Five months after the Chief of Police had been suspended, Stuart Syvret’s home got raided by the police under instructions from new boss Warcup. Documents and his computer were taken. Unheard of for a sitting politician to have confidential information removed and be raided without notice. Was this to do with land corruption evidence as Mr Warcup never announced an investigation, was it an effort to find out what Syvret and his partner new, and had documented including emails to Graham Power not sent through the states communications centre ?

The point being look at the all the dots in the picture and join them up and then get justice. There is more to this than one unintelligent, cheap door knob of politician called Andrew Lewis who did not act alone. He did not have the backbone or legitimate reason to suspend Graham Power, he was under orders, but from whom and for what real reason ?

I wonder if any of you readers can assist me. There used to be online a clip of Sen Bailhache giving a lecture. A transcript would do. I think it was the inaugural Jersey Institute of Law lecture. Anyway it is Sen Bailhache describing an early visit to the UK to appeal for assistance in dealing with another lawyer who had left the island leaving lots of debt. He descibes answering to a v senior UK judge about the desastre laws and he jokes that he resorted to making it up. At least the audience laughed.